He actually worked on them.He's not an engineer, and you aren't one either.
You didnt
He actually worked on them.He's not an engineer, and you aren't one either.
I am Main Propulsion plant NEC qualified. I also served on the USS Nicholson DD 982 (The Nasty Nick). I know exactly what I am talking about.He's not an engineer, and you aren't one either.
That has nothing to do with a Naval Propulsion plant. Look when the two Turbines in MER1 and the two turbines in MER2 are brought online together. The Chiefs in Central get to put the throttle from the halfway mark which is Full Speed and labeled 35kts and move it all the way to Flank Speed which is the 40 KNOT MARK. Do I literally have to post the pic of my ship going at flank speed for you to get the picture of just how much water was being moved.When I was in my 20's I was responsible for making sure that Eli Lilly and Rolls Royce (along with half of Indianapolis) didn't lose electricity and there wasn't enough money or time in the budget for me to draw everything they way I wanted to do it.
I also know exactly what I'm doing.
The Navy likes to have a cushion on all of it's Ship systems just in case of an Oh Shit situation. And Oh Shit situations tend to happen from time to time. So yes the Engineering plants of ships have way more room for emergency situations. Example a Spru Can can steam with both Main Enginerooms online for 4 days straight. My ship did that back during the 80s when it had to get across the Atlantic in a short period of time.IIRC isn't there then a detent past which is Emergency? I know according to Friedman in US Destroyers that the plant is designed for a 25% margin over rated output for emergency situations which I believe is standard for all naval plants. Is that accurate?
Honestly, Bintanarth, Sailor X has infinitely more credibility as a former watchstander with relevant subject matter experience than you do
And completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.Sailor X probably also can't say "You could fit all of the aircraft carrers the British had in 1939 inside of this building footprint with room to spare." when looking at a set of design drawings.
I can.
Yes we do. The regular General Purpose Destroyer and the regular General Purpose Frigate are what the US Navy needs get more of in the fleet.And completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I've always had a soft spot for the SpruCans, to be honest. While the Burkes are the 'new hotness', the SpruCans were pure Destroyer, the spiritual successor to the Fletchers of WW2. They were true general purpose warships, and I still think we need a true successor, not just more specialists.
Is your allegedly being an engineer where this constant need to be so unique and special, and absolutely the smartest most knowledgeable person in the room comes from? You're arguing with someone who served on the freakin' ship and actually ran it, probably before you were even born. Maybe step out of the "I R expert" mode for a second.He's not an engineer, and you aren't one either.
Lets shift this discussion back to Warships now.
Oh wow look at this picture off of Reddit!
Supposedly that's going to be the FREMM-copy we're building, which...is eh to me; it's servicable and proven, but it's also a Euro-frig.And completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I've always had a soft spot for the SpruCans, to be honest. While the Burkes are the 'new hotness', the SpruCans were pure Destroyer, the spiritual successor to the Fletchers of WW2. They were true general purpose warships, and I still think we need a true successor, not just more specialists.
honestly not sure if a GP destroyer design is something anyone is building right nowThose are both air defense destroyers. We need a proper general purpose vessel
There really aren't, just about everything is air defense oriented. Which is fine, but there are other threats, and air defense, especially missile defense, ships are inordinately expensive.honestly not sure if a GP destroyer design is something anyone is building right now
What about upgraded Coast Guard cutters, lengthened to fit VLS/extra supplies/CIWS; it's only one gun, but it could do everything else listed.There really aren't, just about everything is air defense oriented. Which is fine, but there are other threats, and air defense, especially missile defense, ships are inordinately expensive.
What I think we need is a true GP design. 2 5" guns, VLS tubes for anti-ship, anti-submarine, and land-attack missiles, as well as ESSM equivalent for self defense, a large hangar for ASW helicopters (my preference would be a hangar that can either handle 1 King Stallion or 2 Seahawks) with both hull and towed sonar arrays.
One 'rule' I'd set is that the designers are allowed ONE and only ONE 'advanced' design element. Everything else must be in common use by the Navy already. For example, for the SpruCans, the 'one advanced design element' was the gas turbine power plant, prior to the SpruCans the navy only dabbled with gas turbines in light units and small craft. Every other system on the ship was one that had already proven itself in previous construction. This way, you avoid the situation you had with the Zumwalts, where they became a high-tech showcase that were ridiculously expensive and extremely buggy.
That's not a bad idea.What about upgraded Coast Guard cutters, lengthened to fit VLS/extra supplies/CIWS; it's only one gun, but it could do everything else listed.
Backed upped by standard CIWS just in case...of course!instead I'd install a suite of laser-based anti-missile/drone systems as the 'One New Thing'.
Indeed, in fact I would specify that the mounting points for this system must be capable of being backfitted with a standard Phalanx or SeaRAM system with minimal effort, mostly a crane.Backed upped by standard CIWS just in case...of course!